The Apprentice AnalysedLooking at what makes The Apprentice candidates tick2015-09-03T14:48:48Zhttp://www.personneltoday.com/blogs/the-apprentice-analysed/feed/atom/WordPressBinna Kandolahttp://www.pearnkandola.com/binna-kandola.htmlhttp://www.personneltoday.com/blogs/the-apprentice-analysed/?p=2702013-07-04T15:02:24Z2013-07-04T15:02:24Z

Photo: BBC

There’s a widely held belief that men and women have different and complimentary personality traits and abilities.

Women are more social, more group-oriented, more empathetic and more caring. Men, on the other hand, so this belief goes, are more task-focused, more single minded and more analytical.

By having teams of men and women therefore you can meld together these different sets of attributes to create really effective teams. Which obviously sounds fantastic. There is one problem with this analysis: it isn’t true. You only have to look at The Apprentice to see that.

The beginning of each series sees the teams split by gender and invariably they end up squabbling as every contestant tries to establish themselves. The men’s behaviour is typically seen as macho, aggressive and overly competitive but the women’s is invariably seen as ‘bitchy’ and there’s a greater sense of disappointment in them.

The reason this occurs is because of the different stereotypical expectations we have of the two genders. As we expect men to be competitive, when they behave in that way it is consistent with our beliefs. A woman behaving in this way is breaking the stereotype and is judged more harshly because of it.

This process – of the same leadership behaviour being assessed differently for a man and a woman – can be seen in workplaces all of the time. The Apprentice though gave us the chance to see the full range of human behaviour and see the similarities of men and women.

Tom, the winner of The Apprentice 2012, was a quiet, compassionate soul who took a genuine interest in others. Melody, one of Tom’s competitors, was dogmatic and self-absorbed. These are two examples but there were many more throughout every series. What it demonstrates is that we may see differences where none exist and this applies especially to ascribing behaviours to the genders.

]]>0Binna Kandolahttp://www.pearnkandola.com/binna-kandola.htmlhttp://www.personneltoday.com/blogs/the-apprentice-analysed/?p=2602013-05-24T08:49:48Z2013-05-24T08:49:48ZNo Apprentice league table for this series, I have to report, due to the change in the format making it an extended version of Dragon’s Den. The strength of the earlier series was its transparency – everyone could see how the candidates were performing and as a result could make a stab at predicting the outcome. Now, though, we have no idea about the business proposition the candidates are putting forward and it is this that Lord Sugar is most interested in getting his hands on – not the candidate.

I’ve seen the trailers though and it’s inspired my wife and me to come up with a new parlour game : how would you describe yourself if you were an Apprentice candidate? There are three broad categories:

The big, dangerous animal eg. tiger, shark

The Top of the Leaguer eg no-one is better/wants this more than me

The explosion of power eg. a tornado, a volcano

Me? I’d go for category 1, and I’d be a hippo : cuddly, tubby but kills more people than sharks and tigers combined.

Instead of the league table though, I’ll be writing a number of blogs looking back at previous series and picking out themes – personality traits, bullying, group dynamics etc.

When doing the league table, each candidate was being assessed on four criteria:

Thought leadership i.e. having ideas, encouraging creativity in others, being able to tolerate ambiguity, thinking conceptionally.

Finally there is potential, which in many ways is what the show used to be about.

Potential can be trickier to assess, and is often more subjective as a result. But there are certain distinct elements that can be identified: being self-aware, learning from experience, being driven to achieve, listening to and acting upon feedback. We see many examples in the show where people lack self-awareness and self-regulation. They don’t control their emotions and also have little idea of the impact they are having on other people.

The winners have in contrast, all suffered setbacks and have learned from the experience to improve their performance. Even though I won’t be following this series closely, try to watch for those who are showing signs of potential.

Congratulations to Ricky Martin for his victory in the Apprentice. Below I pick out some of the reasons he won as well as some other lessons from the series.

Getting the job done is only one factor in being a good leader

We have seen a variety of leadership styles this series: from dictatorial to consultative; extroverted to introverted; laissez-faire to micromanaging. However, to be successful, a leader needs to display skills in three critical areas – managing people, getting the job done and being able to think broadly.

In the Apprentice the focus is most definitely on getting the job done, how objectives are achieved is of secondary importance. Yet, thought leadership and people leadership skills are just as crucial for everyone who aspires to lead.

Ricky developed as the most rounded leader: he was focused, delegated well and invariably succeeded in understanding what any given task was about.

Responses to mistakes tell us more about potential

In the Apprentice we get to watch others make the most incredible howlers. But we all make mistakes and the way people respond to them can tell us a lot about both their resilience and their potential. Resilience is essentially about how people recover from setbacks. The most resilient people use available resources to help them recover which will include: the way they make sense of what happened; using other people to help provide support; and, finding ways to develop their skills.

An important part of the recovery process of course is feedback. This can be obtained from others but we should also look to give ourselves feedback too. The more honest the feedback and the more willing we are to attend to it the more we develop. One of the characteristics of Apprentice candidates is that they are slow learners – not because they are thick but because they find it so difficult to take on board any criticism.

Ricky deserved to win because he learnt as he progressed through the tasks. At first he was bellicose and belligerent but adapted and in the end was amongst the most thoughtful. In that respect, he emerged in the mid-series as the person with the most potential

Male bias with macho behaviours increasingly valued

The emphasis in this series has shifted from the tasks to the boardroom. This may have increased the dramatic tension but it also heightens the aggression levels. In other words, macho behaviour is rewarded and collaboration is not only downgraded but it isn’t valued much at all. It’s an orthodox, traditional view of leadership that plays to stereotypically male characteristics. In the eight series of the show men have won five times but interestingly they have on average stayed with Lord Sugar for longer. (The first female winner, Michelle Dewbury, didn’t last too long and Stella English is suing for unfair dismissal).

The quality of the candidates went down

This year the candidates were the lowest scoring of any of the series. This could be partially due to the fact that less time was spent showing us the candidates doing things. By my rough calculations between 5-10 minutes more per episode was spent in the boardroom, which over the course of an entire series represented one to two episodes. Even taking that into account, we are still left with a deficit to explain. The candidates are increasingly being selected for their personalities and of course their business proposals and not for their abilities. Dragons’ Den would have taken no more than three episodes to have reached a conclusion and not 12.

It’s time to bring the curtain down

The Apprentice must be the only place left on the planet where a mobile phone is only used for making calls. In the time warp in which the show exists the internet hasn’t been invented, people still use phone books and one can only buy and sell in shops. A more realistic and inventive format would allow the candidates to utilise all of the tools available to us today instead of transporting us back to the 60s. Whilst it is pleasing for us to have picked Ricky out as a potential winner, the show has run out of steam and needs to be shown to the taxi.

Thanks for nothing BAFTA. By awarding the prize for best reality show to the Young Apprentice you’ve practically guaranteed another dose of this increasingly tiresome competition. The decline of the programme was evident before the Young Apprentice aired but that series was the most cynical. When Lord Sugar summarily dismissed the whole of the losing team, irrespective of their previous performance, his Lordship and the programme makers showed that they didn’t actually care which of the young people won.

Because performance on the tasks has become less important – it’s the business idea that is most critical – this series has shown us significantly more of the boardroom bickering and backstabbing. This emphasises the competitive culture which is obviously at the very heart of the show.

Competitive cultures can be effective when unpopular decisions have to be taken and where there is time pressure. However, they also lead to much less collaboration because people will be operating in the implicit belief that: “If you win then I lose”. (It was instructive that Lord Sugar’s less than gracious acceptance speech at the BAFTAs emphasised the fact that he, a relative TV newcomer, had won and they, the TV professionals, had lost.)

In essence, this type of culture means that people and teams seek to dominate others and power is central to this – both in its acquisition and its use. As Adam, the team leader to produce luxury goods, said: “Everyone’s in here for themselves”. This in turn makes it increasingly likely that lying, cheating, bullying, etc will occur. These anti-social behaviours are to a great extent ignored in the show because the only criterion for judging success is the amount of money made.

In this show Nick, having camouflaged his opinions during the task, became highly critical of the team’s decisions in the boardroom. It is this type of duplicity which is typical of a competitive culture. At least Jade and Adam made decisions even though they may not have been great ones. Jade and Adam weren’t slow either in pointing out the faults of the others and puffing up their own supposed achievements. In the end, Jade’s passion in the boardroom saved her and Adam deserved to be shown the exit.

Jade is lucky to be in the final so I can only think that she has the invisible shield of a winning business idea.

At the end of each football season the most commonly heard cliché is “the table never lies”. If only it were true for the Apprentice. This week Gabrielle, our leader for many weeks, was sent home from the boardroom. She was fired along with Stephen, the project manager in a task to find deals for a discount website.

There were some very tired candidates in evidence during the programme and, together with the pressure inherent in each assignment, one could see how decision-making was affected.

Stephen’s approach as leader lacked direction and strategy. The stress brought out in him what could be described as combative qualities but he was also judgemental, critical and sought to pass the buck. He lacked so much as a leader that it was entirely the right decision to sack him.

In this episode it appeared that Gabrielle’s stamina had been sapped and she seemed withdrawn and somewhat uninvolved. Some of that of course can be explained by having to work with the belligerent and domineering Stephen, who has undermined and underestimated her on several occasions in the series.

Her input into tasks has varied – there are times when she has been at the heart of events and other times when she has taken a back seat. But we all have days like that and having contributed so much over the series, not to mention winning both times when she was project manager, it was an injustice that she also was told to leave the show in the first double firing.

Ricky continues to be criticised for the most inappropriate things. How was he to know that he should’ve ordered more of the meal deals from the fancy restaurants? He deliberates, takes action and most significantly shows a willingness to both recognise and learn from his mistakes. One thing that you can be sure of with him is that he won’t do that again. My criticisms of him from the second episode still remain but he does appear to be open to reflection and self development, both of which are indicators of potential.

As I have mentioned in a previous blog there is another factor in deciding the winner: the business proposition that each candidate brings. Some of them therefore have an invisible shield which protects them from being evicted but which also makes this programme something of a travesty and waste of time.

Selective amnesia doesn’t just affect media moguls – returning to the Apprentice after a four-week break I found that I’d forgotten all but a few of this less than vintage bunch.

One pleasant surprise was the way Ricky has developed. As project leader, to market English sparkling wine, he was very unlucky to find himself on the losing side. He quickly grasped the nature of the task which immediately gave his team clarity of purpose. Despite producing a better website, logo and strapline his team were deemed to have failed because of a poor advertisement.

The last item was the responsibility of Stephen and Jenna who justified their lowly positions in our table by creating an ad of striking ineptitude. Ricky maintained that he’d given them a clear brief about what he wanted. In fact, and this was his biggest failing, he had told them what he didn’t want (not cheesy, not gimmicky, etc) which is not the same thing at all.

Wine connoisseur Tom somehow led his team to an undeserved victory. His lack of understanding about the objective of the project meant that much effort was misdirected and nor was he supportive of his team mates when they asked for help. He showed few of the qualities required of a leader.

The task was most notable for showing how selection should not be done. To create the perception that a process is unfair you need subjective criteria, lack of transparency and senior people making known the outcome they want. These were all present last night: the judging was very personal and so subjective; we were not told the team the professionals preferred, creating a lack of transparency; and, Lord Sugar directed Ricky to pick Stephen and Jenna to return to the boardroom, making his preferences clear.

In this case, the process was engineered so that Jenna could be fired. It is difficult to argue about her departure as she resides at the foot of our table, except that she shouldn’t have been on the losing side in the first place. Stephen flailed around and tried to blame others for the team’s defeat. He survived but the charmless, artless and at times rather mindless (looking for a sommelier at Tescos?) individual shouldn’t last too much longer.

So last night was the ‘gallery’ episode, giving the Apprentice candidates the opportunity to buy and sell urban art. Laura was fired, which is pretty much all there is to say about her performance – last night she seemed uncertain, uninvolved and lacking any sense of the enthusiasm we saw earlier in the series.

No, the real focus of the episode – from a psychological perspective – was Tom, the picture-portrait of a confident-arrogant personality.

What defines the confident-arrogant leader? They take control, they enjoy being in charge, they have strong self-belief and they are calm under pressure. People often report that they enjoy working with confident-arrogant types as they bring focus, edge, authority and decisiveness. Indeed, the response to Lord Sugar’s standard opening question “was ‘ee a good team leader?” was a unanimous “yes Lord Sugar”.

But under pressure, confident leaders have a darker side. The strong self-belief can become an arrogant disregard of risk. Their clear focus can become blinkered decision-making. Their calm outlook can become an irrational determination to prove themselves. And their confidence can become an inability to listen to others.

We saw all of these during the brief meeting with the artist, ‘Pure Evil’, as Tom pushed his own knowledge and expertise, talking at the artist rather than trying to understand him and engage with him. When rejected, Tom’s emotion and shock were visible, revealing that he had never – at any stage – contemplated that the artist would opt for another team. And, with no ‘plan B’, he opted for an emotional high-risk strategy, rather than listen to his team and leave his own disappointment to one side. It was like watching someone lose their first bet on a roulette table and then stick everything on green zero.

Tom survived of course, because of his confidence. And because he fits perfectly with Lord Sugar’s model of a start-up entrepreneur: unshakeable self-belief; a readiness to take impulsive risks; and an inability to empathise with people.

Elsewhere, Adam played the naive art critic, claiming to have no opinion on art yet nonetheless expressing plenty of opinions on art. It worked, to a degree, as Adam connected with others effectively and sold to punters with a likeable and genuine impact. His approach, though, is of limited value as a leader and we’ll need to see more conviction and authority if he is to make it through to the final rounds.

On the other team, Gabrielle used her artistic background and personal skills to connect well with the artists and, critically, win the endorsement of Pure Evil. She brought balance and imagination to her team and now rightly heads the league table. Ricky and Nick showed the usual level of energy, tenacity and task focus to leave them well positioned mid-table. And Jenna, barely present in this episode, now resides firmly at the foot of the table. She will need to impress in the ‘wine tasting’ episode or risk being out of the picture entirely.

There have been some phenomenally successful retail strategies in the past century. Jack Cohen’s “pile ‘em high and sell ‘em cheap” strategy is a classic example that helped turned his Hackney market stall in 1919 into the world’s second most profitable retailer – Tesco. In contrast, Jade’s complete lack of strategy was clearly the downfall for Team Phoenix in this week’s retail task.

Not that it went unnoticed. Azhar raised enough flags about the lack of strategy to make many people never want to hear the word again, and we covered enough about strategic errors in last week’s Apprentice Analysed blog for me to avoid over-egging the strategy pudding this week.

Jade’s responses to Azhar’s questions were fascinating, however. Unable to answer his repeated requests for clarity about the strategy, Jade obviously felt exposed. Rather than recognise that she needed to think about her approach, Jade instead began a counter-attack, describing Azhar as annoying and indicating that he was doing her head in. This is problematic, because a good predictor of career derailment in leaders is their inability to listen to criticism from their team.

Azhar, for his part, clearly needs to develop some skill in the psychology of persuasion. In essence there are three factors to focus on when influencing others:

Be prepared (for example identifying a few solutions as well as flagging the problem).

Understand the perspective of the person you’re trying to influence (including the pressures they’re under and their motivations).

Azhar missed all three factors. This meant that his attempts to flag the one thing that could have saved the task for Jade instead made it look like he was whining. His broken-record approach simply irritated Jade to the point that she took him into the boardroom, and ultimately contributed to his being fired.

In contrast, the task was much smoother for Team Stirling this week. A combination of steady project management from Nick, good sales patter from Ricky and product expertise from Jenna meant that the team worked effectively together. Ricky does need a nudge, however, to reign in his somewhat high-handed comments that he didn’t need any lessons from Jenna (a beauty salon owner) in selling spray-on tan product. This was especially ironic given that he complained about the fact that his own skills in selling weren’t being fully utilised.

Finally, a quick review of how far through the process we are. We started the process with 16 candidates and we are now left with nine. We have just five remaining weeks of this series. Time for a double-firing?

This series of the Apprentice is turning into the series of thinking errors. We have seen a lack of creative thinking across the teams (need I mention the tap-cosy in episode 2?). Last week we were witness to a range of decision-making errors and this week a clutch of strategic errors were the downfall of Team Phoenix in the gourmet fast-food task.

In the UK, just one in three UK firms report achieving “strategic success”, so it’s perhaps not surprising that Team Phoenix fell foul of this problem. We saw the team make four strategic errors. Firstly, the pricing strategy – it’s a very rare product indeed that can return a profit margin of more than 1200%.

Secondly, the marketing strategy. Failing to capitalise on the name of an award-winning local chef who’s willing to lend his brand to your product, for free, is clearly a mistake.

Thirdly, location. Matching product to customer, in this instance matching the gourmet food to the right footfall, is key. A £6 fast-food van lunch at a football match, with just 30 minutes of peak trade time, is not a high-risk strategy, it’s a crazy strategy.

Fourthly, quality. Although it didn’t directly lead to the failure of Team Phoenix in this week’s task, it’s noteworthy that Adam’s keep-it-cheap strategy was in direct contradiction to the briefing for high-quality food. The only reason this strategic error didn’t contribute directly to their failure was because once again this week’s task was all about getting one-off sales rather than establishing repeat business.

Critically, no one in the team spotted these errors or challenged the decisions, at least not until they got into the boardroom. A typical group-think situation.

These types of strategic error occur in teams for a range of reasons, including, as we saw in Team Phoenix, a lack of breadth in their thinking (for example by failing to consider different options), compounded by the lack of depth (such as failing to identify the implications of their decisions). Katie was definitely the right person to go this week as she typified this type of thinking error.

“Star of the show” – OK that might be overstating it – “glimmer of hope in the show” this week goes to Ricky. I must admit I enjoyed his mental agility with stats and the fact that he knew to the penny what the team had spent on products. This was complemented by his practical skills in selling and simple touches, like getting the bagpipe player to come over to the vending station to play. Although you could argue that the sound of bagpipes might suppress appetite rather than stimulate it.

In contrast, the gift of the gab that Stephen has relied on throughout the series is starting to wear a little thin. He’s going to have to demonstrate something of substance soon if he’s to avoid the pointy finger. Also, this week was Jenna’s great chance to shine, given her role as PM. Alas she missed her opportunity and it is only a matter of time before she disappears from the competition.

]]>0Binna Kandolahttp://www.pearnkandola.com/binna-kandola.htmlhttp://the-apprentice-analysed.www.personneltoday.com/blogs/?p=662013-05-21T16:05:19Z2012-04-24T11:38:29ZTravelling commitments meant that I missed last week’s Apprentice episode and will mean I won’t be able to see the next two either (although a colleague will be writing the blog in my place). I was suitably surprised to learn, though, that our early table topper, Duane, had been shown the finger by his Lordship.

The league table is meant to be fun and the blog intended to highlight the psychology behind the contestants’ actions. Having said that, I felt peeved that the redoubtable Duane had been fired. My reaction is based in equal measures on personal pride and ego protection. It’s a common failing amongst experts where you set out to defend your original position in the incorrect belief that your prediction was a fact. It is easy, therefore, to state that the decision was wrong rather than our analysis.

We are nevertheless at the mercy of the programme makers and can only go by what they show us. Their objective, of course, is to create drama which relies on tension and surprise. The viewing figures would plummet if it was clear now who the winner was going to be. Of more significance in this series, as with the last one, is a set of information to which none of the viewers is privy – the proposition for the business venture that the candidates are putting up.

In the last series, the eventual winner, Tom, was good but was not the best candidate. He survived some narrow escapes because Lord Sugar saw some value in his business ideas. Interestingly he wasn’t bothered about Tom’s new idea – something to do with chairs – but wanted to exploit his already established innovation – something to do with nail files.

In other words, someone with good all-round skills and good leadership qualities but with a poor business proposal is a more expendable candidate than someone with poor skills and a great idea. A good business idea therefore acts as an invisible (to us at least) shield which, irresepective of their performance, protects them and ensures they progress.

The series therefore, whilst entertaining, is more like an extended version of Dragons’ Den.